BoxRec

When members of this forum discuss the pros and cons of PPV, there are many who feel that this is the way the worlds turning and £10 - £13 might not be too much to ask for a nights entertainment.
I got a letter this morning from an old chap who lives in Welshpool. A boxing fanatic. 76 years old, deaf, fitted with a pacemaker and had a quadruple bypass in December. Doesn't use the internet, lives alone . Read about the Eubank night on ITV. Paid his money and sat staring at a blue screen.
Two points. The old guy is totally lost and is wondering what he did wrong ( nothing). Second point, not EVERYBODY believes £10- £13 is OK to watch boxing on the telly after having paid, in this instance, your TV licence.
We are boxing fans on this forum. We don't make a living from professional boxing. But there are people who do make money, and it's there role to earn as much as possible. Everybody involved needs to fully understand that the only way those people can earn their money is if someone gives it to them. That means us. The fans, dedicated or part time.
As long as the live audience are prepared to be scalped for tickets, and stay at home fans are prepared to pay the additional cost, then this tend will continue until the bubble bursts.

Can i just ask why you got a letter from a old guy? Why did he write to you telling you about his blue screen?

I heard on Twitter many people suffered this issue too.

Unfortunately its the way of the world, ppv is hear to stay especially if people are willing to shell out for any old fight. This card wasnt worthy of ppv but people paid and made it happen.

I would contest that the eubank ppv was actually a better card than some sky ppv's that cost more.

its a shame the galahad fight fell through as that strengthened the card nicely.

What pisses me off is Sky. My bills are constantly rising, yet they expect me to pay extra to watch an 80/20 main event. The only reason PPV is here is due to greedy promoters. Boxes of the past were paid well enough.

rhino222 wrote:I would contest that the eubank ppv was actually a better card than some sky ppv's that cost more.

That's not an argument in defence of the Eubank bill being ppv.


Is it?

We're lucky we don't have to pay through the nose for PPV like the yanks do.

I don't really get the outrage to be honest. If you think something's not worth the money then don't buy it.

If you are gettin g 30k plus viewers on live streams on Facebook why are people paying ppv anyway?

CaptainSpacerod wrote:We're lucky we don't have to pay through the nose for PPV like the yanks do.

I don't really get the outrage to be honest. If you think something's not worth the money then don't buy it.

Whilst I'm very much against the majority of PPVs (I accept that some mega fights can't be made without it), I do agree that it's not worth getting outraged about. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I find it hard to be too bothered if I miss watching a fight live these days, it's so easy to watch on YouTube the next morning without the hassle of paying Sky or PPV.

You realize you're talking to people who bought Khan Salita right?

mimmy123 wrote:If you are gettin g 30k plus viewers on live streams on Facebook why are people paying ppv anyway?

There were 60k plus on the FB stream I saw

littlepug wrote:

mimmy123 wrote:If you are gettin g 30k plus viewers on live streams on Facebook why are people paying ppv anyway?

There were 60k plus on the FB stream I saw

Said on boxing asylum podcast that it peaked at near 100k!

TheLeprechaun wrote:You realize you're talking to people who bought Khan Salita right?

I actually fuckin went to it

Stuarty30 wrote:

littlepug wrote:

mimmy123 wrote:If you are gettin g 30k plus viewers on live streams on Facebook why are people paying ppv anyway?

There were 60k plus on the FB stream I saw

Said on boxing asylum podcast that it peaked at near 100k!

Effing hell. plus the other streaming channels on Kodi, and online. I did see a link to a youtube stream but it was secret and was linked as something completely different.

I would love to be a reporter at the after boxing conf and ask Sr what he though tof the illegal 100k plus many more streams.

mimmy123 wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:

littlepug wrote: There were 60k plus on the FB stream I saw

Said on boxing asylum podcast that it peaked at near 100k!

Effing hell. plus the other streaming channels on Kodi, and online. I did see a link to a youtube stream but it was secret and was linked as something completely different.

I would love to be a reporter at the after boxing conf and ask Sr what he though tof the illegal 100k plus many more streams.

Bet he wishes he followed through on his threats to close the Internet

CaptainSpacerod wrote:We're lucky we don't have to pay through the nose for PPV like the yanks do.

I don't really get the outrage to be honest. If you think something's not worth the money then don't buy it.

The TV structure in America is far different to ours, they aren't paying for a TV licence or the high costs we do for Sky so PPV is a far more accepted medium.

More importantly the idea of what a PPV event is has been greatly diminished over last few years in the UK, not just the recent ITV show but several of Hearn's PPV headliners have been a fecking joke. Its soon going to get to the stage where we'll be expected to dig into our pocket for every meaningful fight.

Mimmy

The old chap was writing to me because I bought some old boxing photos from him because he's trying to get rid of his collection. He sent a lengthy letter ( I think he was just glad to have somebody to relate his woes to) and included was the issue with ITV. Poor old lad, he has a younger guy , whose also partially deaf, who pops in once a week.

moogie101 wrote:

CaptainSpacerod wrote:We're lucky we don't have to pay through the nose for PPV like the yanks do.

I don't really get the outrage to be honest. If you think something's not worth the money then don't buy it.

The TV structure in America is far different to ours, they aren't paying for a TV licence or the high costs we do for Sky so PPV is a far more accepted medium.

More importantly the idea of what a PPV event is has been greatly diminished over last few years in the UK, not just the recent ITV show but several of Hearn's PPV headliners have been a fecking joke. Its soon going to get to the stage where we'll be expected to dig into our pocket for every meaningful fight.

I agree with you that a good proportion of Hearn's PPVs are a fvcking joke but he's only doing them because the market's there for them. There are always gonna be poor old chaps who are flummoxed by technology and don't have anyone to help them out and I have huge sympathy for the guy mentioned in the OP but in this day and age where pretty much every man and his dog knows how to access free streams online or thru dodgy boxes I find the outrage even more misplaced - either don't buy it or stream it, what's so difficult.

That said I wonder if there's an aspect of nostalgia to all this. I'm in my 40s and boxing fans of my generation grew up watching the massive PPVs of the 90s involving Tyson and Holyfield and Lewis so we equate PPV with huge fights and can't quite get our heads round paying the best part of £20 to watch a prospect knock over a bum.

CaptainSpacerod wrote:
That said I wonder if there's an aspect of nostalgia to all this. I'm in my 40s and boxing fans of my generation grew up watching the massive PPVs of the 90s involving Tyson and Holyfield and Lewis so we equate PPV with huge fights and can't quite get our heads round paying the best part of £20 to watch a prospect knock over a bum.

I'm the same age & I might be wrong but I remember those PPV's as huge all night events as well, for the price of the PPV we'd get a cracking domestic show & then jump across to America for a card headlined by a fight between genuine stars. Now we get AJ rolling over some overhyped Yank or a domestic affair that HAD to be PPV because of some made up feud with just an ok undercard because the really appealing domestic fights are being held back to headline the Sky Sports fight night cards.

Promoters ,will tell you they have to be ppv to make them viable , .. There sort of like a muderer who expects you to thank him cos he's gonna shoot you , instead of bludgeoning you to death with a hammer .

So theres only one word i can say , STREAM

coneye wrote:Promoters ,will tell you they have to be ppv to make them viable , .. There sort of like a muderer who expects you to thank him cos he's gonna shoot you , instead of bludgeoning you to death with a hammer .

So theres only one word i can say , STREAM

Only thing is bet the 76 year old in question doesn't even know how to use the remote on the telly !

Bring back more boxing on regular terestrial tv .

dalcumly wrote:Mimmy

The old chap was writing to me because I bought some old boxing photos from him because he's trying to get rid of his collection. He sent a lengthy letter ( I think he was just glad to have somebody to relate his woes to) and included was the issue with ITV. Poor old lad, he has a younger guy , whose also partially deaf, who pops in once a week.

davie wrote:

rhino222 wrote:I would contest that the eubank ppv was actually a better card than some sky ppv's that cost more.

That's not an argument in defence of the Eubank bill being ppv.


Is it?

not really mate but just saying that eddie has served up far worse. eubank should have gone freeview for a couple of fights then ppv'd a biggie

rhino222 wrote:

davie wrote:

rhino222 wrote:I would contest that the eubank ppv was actually a better card than some sky ppv's that cost more.

That's not an argument in defence of the Eubank bill being ppv.


Is it?

not really mate but just saying that eddie has served up far worse. eubank should have gone freeview for a couple of fights then ppv'd a biggie

He has indeed

This thread gave me a smile - not because of the issue, but because I'll wager the letter was from 'Boxing Frank' as he is known round these parts.

Always to be found in the pub whenever the boxing is on Sky of a Saturday night (which is very rare these days), drinking from his special glass they keep for him.

Quite a character.

That's exactly who it is! Seems to me like a decent old boy. Go round and explain how he can get his money back from ITV!